"Shot placement is king, Capacity is queen, Caliber is a lowly jester"

Recently heard that and loved it.. Also, I now have a signature! :cool:

I presume you carry a PMR-30 in .22 magnum, then?

ATBackPackin

November 15, 2012, 06:48 PM

I presume you carry a PMR-30 in .22 magnum, then?
Good point, but i'm not sure he was talking about rimfire ammo. Then again I don't know he wasn't either so I'll shut up now.

:p

Certaindeaf

November 15, 2012, 06:50 PM

for war

jeepnik

November 15, 2012, 09:50 PM

Tis true. But as long as you are hitting a target where it should be hit, you might as well put as big a hole in it as you can.:evil:

skidder

November 16, 2012, 12:54 AM

38 special or 454 on a charging Grizzly, or an assailant with body armor? There are exceptions to every rule.

ArchAngelCD

November 16, 2012, 01:35 AM

When asked what ammo to use I always say, the best bullet in the world will do you no good unless you make good hits.

I guess that could also fit for caliber wars too.
A bigger bullet will do you no good unless you hit what you aim at.
Or, a faster bullet will do you no good unless you hit what you aim at.

henrifirstman

November 16, 2012, 02:15 AM

I use a 40 because I like my 40's.
If I had a couple of 9's I'd like em too.
If I had some 45's, That would be cool too.

I like what I like and I don't need any other reason.
I should start reloading though, because .40 brass is everywhere I shoot. Oceans of .40 brass.

mljdeckard

November 16, 2012, 12:02 PM

I don't agree entirely. No one is saying that you shouldn't get the very best hits you can, but in reality, you are doing well to get hits at all. (Look at police shooting data.)

I quit worrying about capacity. I used to carry big polymer lead PEZ dispensers, and I just decided that if I can't do the job with the 8+1 in my 1911, it's unlikely that 9 more in a Glock will save me either.

I do agree that caliber is not nearly as important as it used to be. With modern premium JHP bullets, there is very little difference in real world performance between service cartridges.

highpower

November 16, 2012, 01:12 PM

I quit worrying about capacity. I used to carry big polymer lead PEZ dispensers, and I just decided that if I can't do the job with the 8+1 in my 1911, it's unlikely that 9 more in a Glock will save me either.

Exactly. It seems that today's shooters are all wrapped up in how many shots their gun can hold, rather than whether they can hit what their aiming at.

Learn how to shoot accurately and you won't need fifteen shots, one or two will do the job. Of course a hit with a smaller caliber may not incapacitate an attacker as readily as a hit with a large caliber will. But a miss will do nothing at all.

mljdeckard

November 16, 2012, 02:27 PM

That depends on the definition of "smaller caliber". If I am carrying anything 9 or bigger (to include good loads of .380,) I don't anticipate much difference between them.

click clack

November 16, 2012, 04:19 PM

38 special or 454 on a charging Grizzly, or an assailant with body armor? There are exceptions to every rule.

Touche'

Double Naught Spy

November 16, 2012, 06:09 PM

"Shot placement is king, Capacity is queen, Caliber is a lowly jester"

The king is impotent without trajectory and penetration.

56hawk

November 16, 2012, 06:29 PM

The thing that bothers me about shot placement is that a lot of people seem to use it interchangeably with a lucky shot. Sure a 22LR that manages to sever an important artery can kill someone, but it's not like that was what they were aiming for.

Bikewer

November 16, 2012, 09:21 PM

I agree with Deckard. Under the stresses and exigencies of combat, shot placement may be an unobtainable thing. You take what you can get, and peripheral hits with bigger slugs are likely to be more disabling than peripheral hits with smaller ones.

Hokkmike

November 16, 2012, 10:05 PM

A .40 or .45 at center mass will do the trick. It most cases a 9mm or .380 will too. I just don't like being in the "exception" category.

mljdeckard

November 16, 2012, 11:50 PM

No. There is no guarantee that ANY bullet will EVER do a given thing to a given target. Only degrees of likelihood.

Yep. 9mm disciples love quotes like that to validate their choice of a lesser caliber. I use 9mm, but I'm realistic and honest in the reasons why and effectiveness is not at the top of that list.

Certaindeaf

November 18, 2012, 08:46 AM

^
So you use it because it's just so cute?

coalman

November 18, 2012, 10:19 AM

So you use it [9mm] because it's just so cute?

Cost
Capacity
Control (of recoil)
Carry (gun size/weight)

IMO most choose 9mm for the above reasons then up dream up ways it's "equally effective" to feel good about it. How well matters more than with what, but given identical POI 9mm HP is not the "most effective" and never can or will be apple vs. apple. 9mm is plenty good enough to get most jobs done.

il.bill

November 18, 2012, 10:43 AM

I quit worrying about capacity. I used to carry big polymer lead PEZ dispensers, and I just decided that if I can't do the job with the 8+1 in my 1911, it's unlikely that 9 more in a Glock will save me either.

Very well put. With your permission I would like to add the phrase "big polymer lead PEZ dispensers" to my firearm lexicon.

KenW.

November 18, 2012, 11:10 AM

I believe it is not necessarily the size of the holes (provided it is a centerfire caliber that will penetrate decently); but where they are placed. And how many.

If I can place three center of mass hits with a 9mm in the same amount of time it takes to place two .45s, which is more effective?

k_dawg

November 18, 2012, 11:22 AM

.50 BMG is the perfect anti-personel round.

All others are a compromise.

coalman

November 18, 2012, 12:37 PM

I believe it is not necessarily the size of the holes (provided it is a centerfire caliber that will penetrate decently); but where they are placed. And how many.

If I can place three center of mass hits with a 9mm in the same amount of time it takes to place two .45s, which is more effective?

I agree it's better (in terms of individual proficiency) to be more effective with a lesser caliber than less effective with a greater caliber. Most shooters are average. So, that's a valid argument in favor of 9mm for most shooters. And, the additional capacity may help offset skill level, not to mention possibly being favorable in the dreaded "gang 'o thugs" style attack of urban lore. I like and use 9mm in higher capacity handguns like a CZ (CCW), Glock (range/game), Beretta (HD/SHTF) and Sig. I prefer .45acp in the 1911 (CCW) and in the Glock 30 (CCW).

beatledog7

November 18, 2012, 01:43 PM

The true "king" in all of this is a thorough understanding of the interplay among the variables. The "queen" would then be proper application of that understanding. The "jester" is thinking that any one of the variables always matters most.

Tcruse

November 18, 2012, 02:30 PM

For any caliber discussion to make sense, you have to agree on what is the measure of effectiveness. If you are talking about power/size then .357Sig, .40, .45, and 10mm will be better than 9mm. If you use the FBI standard, then all of these with the best bullet design will perform the same. (ref: http://www.winchester.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/flash-SWFs/law_bullit.swf )

My opinion is that for self defense, you can have too big and too powerful. You want your bullet to go deep enough to hit vital areas and to not go out of your target to hit unintended targets. You want expansion so as to make a big hole. As a civilian, shooting through barriers (like cars) is probably not something that would be easily justified.

For large 4 legged threats, then get a 10mm or some other powerful caliber (assuming that you do not have a rifle as an option)

David E

November 18, 2012, 03:46 PM

If I can place three center of mass hits with a 9mm in the same amount of time it takes to place two .45s, which is more effective?

I get REAL sick of this stuff. You have handgun rounds that START at 1700 ft-lbs of energy, and go up to 3200 ft-lbs. In other words we finally have rifle power in packable five guns. Also they are
bullets the size of class 5 stopping rifles. In other words, they do a LOT of damage.

My friends like to shoot buffalos with these rounds(not the 45 Super). They are, after many observations, equal too, or more effective then my .375 H&H rifle.

So, lets get this straight: size does matter, both in bullet weight, diameter, and length, and when you add velocity you get a rifle in a packable five gun.

As to how effective these kinds of rounds are on humans:

The only .375 H&H on a human report I could find was an AD, while hunting in Africa. Blew the guys arm clean off, and he died from blood loss.

Kind of curious if you all can find a cases where people require multiple hits from .375 H&H to stop them...

mljdeckard

November 19, 2012, 08:40 AM

Tcruse-

That is not what defensive pistol bullets do. ALL service-caliber pistol premium defensive ammunition will completely traverse a human target under most circumstances. You can NEVER plan on a bullet stopping in the target. If I thought a cartridge was likely to stop in the target, I wouldn't carry it. I want a wound channel from one side to the other, with a gaping exit wound. If it doesn't, then there is tissue that didn't get damaged, blood vessels that didn't get cut.

481

November 19, 2012, 03:06 PM

Tcruse-

That is not what defensive pistol bullets do. ALL service-caliber pistol premium defensive ammunition will completely traverse a human target under most circumstances. You can NEVER plan on a bullet stopping in the target. If I thought a cartridge was likely to stop in the target, I wouldn't carry it. I want a wound channel from one side to the other, with a gaping exit wound. If it doesn't, then there is tissue that didn't get damaged, blood vessels that didn't get cut.

M,

I always enjoy your insights- mainly 'cause I agree with 'em. :)

mljdeckard

November 19, 2012, 03:18 PM

Let's just say I've done a lot of learning and growing in the last 20 years or so. :)

Tcruse

November 19, 2012, 03:21 PM

True, if the bullet does not give an exit wound, there may be some blood vessels that are not affected. Now, is the last 1/2" worth enough to really make a difference. I do not think so. Now, if the bullet exits and hits a child playing across the street, then I do care.
If you hit the spine with a 22LR or a .45 ACP/GAP the BG will stop.
If you miss a vital spot, the .45 ACP/GAP will produce a bigger hole and blood loss will be somewhat quicker, but quick enough to keep the BG from killing you?
Now, my theory is that you need to plan on multiple shots and the gun that provides more rounds will keep me in the fight for a longer period of time and also help the odds of hitting a vital spot.
I do think that there is a lower limit for SD carry, probably 9X19 (maybe .380). Also, I think that it is easy to go too big and too powerful. I think that any of the common carry calibers (9mm, 357SIG, .40S&W, .45 ACP, .45GAP) will work and be justifiable to a jury if necessary. Now, not sure where the 5.7X28 fits into the picture.
The fewer issues that can be exploited by the DA the better. I think that much justice is some level of gray in our legal system.

mljdeckard

November 19, 2012, 03:40 PM

I do. Exit wounds are QUITE nasty.

In the real world, you have to remember a couple of things. You have to follow rule number four ALL OF THE TIME. On the range. As a civilian, as a cop, as a soldier in Ramadi. There are no circumstances under which you get a pass on knowing what is behind your target. No matter what bullet you use, you cannot assume that it WON'T overpenetrate. You can't stand grandma behind the target because you think it's one of the 'non-penetrating' loads. You STILL have to make sure that the area behind your target is clear. In real life, you are responsible for everything that bullet hits. And the truth is, innocent bystanders getting hit by stray bullets is actually pretty rare.

SO, if you have to follow all of the safety rules ALL of the time anyway, and you are fighting for your life, and you are armed with a handgun which is an inferior tool to begin with, how could you not want the most effective possible ammunition you can get?

I can think of one case where someone was convicted for what kind of bullet they used. You know what? A DA who REALLY wants to hang you up is going to think of something no matter what you do. This is a question of priorities. You can't get sued or prosecuted if you don't survive. LIVE FIRST, THEN call your lawyer. A defensive shooting is the second worst thing that can ever happen to you, and you should avoid it as such. You are more likely to declare bankruptcy, get divorced, lose your job, and have to move as a result, no matter what kind of bullet you use. There is no cartridge choice that will shield you from the negative effects.

You can try to hit the spine all you want. It's difficult to consistently do that shot on a paper target on the range. In real life, the target won't stand still for you. You are doing good if you hit the 8 ring.

Yes, it will produce a bigger hole. The best thing you can do to increase the likelihood that you hit something the bad guy needs to keep hurting you is change 'hole' into 'holes'.

If you are trying to hit something vital, isn't using a bullet that has limited penetration counterintuitive? ALL defensive ammo you listed, with the possible exception of the .380 (and even then it's not guaranteed) will completely traverse a human target under most circumstances. And you WANT them to.

dom1104

November 19, 2012, 03:43 PM

I justify,
a small piece of lead.
Because all that I shoot
Is already dead.

:)

AKMtnRunner

November 19, 2012, 07:25 PM

Once we get over a threshold in power, shot placement is king. One needs to know their limitations for accuracy before dismissing the advantages of having a higher caliber or powerful cartridge. Otherwise, we'd all carry .22 caliber cartridges and train for head shots. But we don't. We have to accept that there will be a margin of error in our shot placements.

Someone posted a link in another thread to a video of Navy Seals or some other Special Forces training with 9mm. The question in that discussion was should they be using a more capable round. Well, one of the soldiers interviewed was completely satisfied, and stated "after two shots in the heart and one in the head, they won't know the difference". I'll be the last to argue that those folks need anymore with their skill. But it needs to be noted, that they use no less than a 9mm. I would submit that shot placement is king, caliber (power, more accurately) is queen, and capacity is the jester.

SHR970

November 19, 2012, 07:57 PM

Under the stresses and exigencies of combat, shot placement may be an unobtainable thing. You take what you can get, and peripheral hits with bigger slugs are likely to be more disabling than peripheral hits with smaller ones.

The Hollywood shootout proves the bolded part of this out. 38's, 9mm's, and 12 gauges with buckshot were not effective. 40's, 357 Sig, 45's would not have made a bit of difference.

There is no guarantee that ANY bullet will EVER do a given thing to a given target. Only degrees of likelihood.

So very true. Drugs, mental state, physical shape, and other factors are the reason that there are so many cases of people doing amazing things AFTER they have been shot. That's why a 12 gauge with buckshot is not rated 100% effective in a timely manner with one shot.

k_dawg

November 20, 2012, 07:47 PM

The damage beyond the target due to overpenetration is minor compared to the damage caused by missing the intended target.

kingcheese

November 20, 2012, 08:22 PM

Sounds good, but if your nervous, and shooting to protect yourself, i know, i want a gun that can deliver the most power possible

splattergun

November 20, 2012, 08:27 PM

for war
para bellum

sgt127

November 21, 2012, 12:47 AM

All said and done, I have seen quite a few people shot. If the bullet hits the right spot, AND goes in deep enough, it shuts them off. A big fast bullet, that doesn't hit the magic spot works just as well as a slower, smaller bullet that doesn't hit the spot.

With modern ammo, most of the common defense calibers .38 and up, will, generally, go deep enough to reach "the spot" (whatever it may be).

You can shut off a biological creature several ways.

"Oh poop, he has a gun, I'm out of here" (only works on humans)
Get shot, it hurts, I'm done.
Get shot in the brain or spine, body shuts off, they are done.
Poke holes until enough hydraulic fluid leaks out, they quit working.

So, lets say we get a shot at the spine. A 9mm misses. Would that extra 1 MM in a .40 have hit the spine? Maybe. Would the extra 3 MM of a .45 have hit it? Maybe.

Can you shoot the 9mm dramatically faster than a .45? If you can shoot 3 9mm's for every 2 .45's do your odds of hitting the spine (aeorta, brain etc) go up? Again, maybe.

Will the three 9 mm holes cause more fluid to leak out faster than the two .45's?

I don't think there is an answer. No matter how hard we try, no matter how hard we seek the single answer, its not there. If there were truly a definitive answer, we would all be carrying the same thing because it has proven it is the best, under all conditions for all people.

RetiredUSNChief

November 21, 2012, 01:16 AM

.50 BMG is the perfect anti-personel round.

All others are a compromise.

Heh!

A brother of mine once explained to me how they thought of the 20 mm Vulcan (M61A1) in the Air Force. He described it as an "anti-personnel weapon". The 30 mm was the weapon of choice for the hardware.

Ahhhh...6,000 rounds per minute of 20 mm anti-personnel rounds weighing in at 3.5 ounces each and delivered at 3,450 fps.

Now THAT's perfection!

Well, from an Air Force perspective, anyway. I'm Navy myself...I say the 16 inch guns top that. What they lack in rate of fire they make up for in range (20+ miles) and mass (up t0 2,700 pounds). Crunch THAT through your energy calculations at 2,950 fps. Yeah, baby!

"Oh poop, he has a gun, I'm out of here" (only works on humans)
Get shot, it hurts, I'm done.
Get shot in the brain or spine, body shuts off, they are done.
Poke holes until enough hydraulic fluid leaks out, they quit working.

I like that. Very concise.

coalman

November 21, 2012, 01:09 PM

Nice, concise post sgt127.

Will the three 9 mm holes cause more fluid to leak out faster than the two .45's?

Given typical aggregate expansion of 1.5x - 1.6x for both, more net surface area is contacted by two .45's vs. three 9mm. What's hit will always matter, but you will never know what's hit until it's hit. I often see this as two camps of assumption: 1) you will have multiple hits on target (9mm = capacity/control) or 2) you will make every hit most effective (.45acp = caliber).

sgt127

November 21, 2012, 04:08 PM

What's hit will always matter, but you will never know what's hit until it's hit.

That pretty much sums it up.....

Cee Zee

November 21, 2012, 11:58 PM

People assume caliber does
not matter in causing harm,
Bear knows what matters.

In English, try shooting a brown bear with a .22 and see how much shot placement matters. Remember you only get one try. Now tell us all whether you want a .22 or a .44 (magnum). Size matters. I think deep down we all know that. And why do people think they can be more accurate with a smaller round anyway? And why do people think modern bullets only come from 9mm handguns? Didn't other calibers get improved too?

CZ223

November 22, 2012, 08:16 AM

and it probably does not matter but, I believe in carrying the largest, most potent, caliber that you can shoot accurately in a gun that you are competent with. That is why I carry a 1911 with 2 spare mags. When it comes to guns carried for protection I rate them based on how accurately I shoot them, Caliber, capacity and, of course, concealability. With that said, the Glock 23 comes out on top bar none. The only reason that I don't carry it on a daily basis is that I shoot the 1911 slightly better and I don't have a VMII for my Glock 23.:( Reliability is also a factor and again, the the Glock comes out on top, for me anyway. I have nothing against the 9mm, 357, 38 special or even the lowly 380, they all serve a purpose and I have owned, still own, and will own all of them into the future. When it comes to my primary though it will be a 40 or 45 and I need no other reason than that is what I like.

wanderinwalker

November 22, 2012, 09:03 AM

I'm fond of saying "they're handguns, not magic death rays." Basically, so long as we're .38 Special/9mm and bigger, I'm happy (mostly). There are exceptions, as I'm not real trusting 125gr +P .38 Special loads or the target wadcutters some people are comfortable with. Once you're into the FBI load or heavier I have confidence they will do what needs to be done. (For reference I think the ultimate .357 Magnum load would be a 140-145gr Gold Dot or similar at about 1300-fps, as I understand Winchester no longer manufacturers the 145gr Silvertip. And my 9mms are stoked with 127gr +P+ Rangers. I don't own anything in a .40+ caliber anymore.)

But I understand the only sure fire way to make somebody stop what they are doing is to use a Scottish Claymore and I'm a bit short and small to conceal one of those. So a pistol will have to do. :p

Double Naught Spy

November 22, 2012, 09:27 AM

While I know the real world performance stats between 9mm and .45 acp and feel that both can be shown to perform equally from a statistical perspective, I also understand that at such low velocities, handgun ammo depends on permanent cavity tissue damage to achieve the desired results biologically-speaking (physical stoppage and not psychological stoppage, though real world resutls certainly include psychological stops). So I would prefer the ~38% larger hole of the .45 acp round over the 9mm round because I believe it is more apt to produce biological stops more often than 9mm (everything else being equal).

I am not suggesting that in the real world that 9mm is inferior or that carrying it is makes a person undergunned. I have never seen stats to show that the extra permanent cavity damage is more apt to produce a biological stop in the real world, apparently because no such data set exists. Logic would indicate this to be the case, however. In the real world, however, the vast majority of handgun shooting stops are psychological, not biological, and it doesn't really matter if the person is incapacitated or just gives up so long as they stop their aggression.

NOTE: I carry both. I just prefer .45 acp.

guyfromohio

November 22, 2012, 09:41 AM

Now that muggers wear thousand dollar body armor to rob you of $20 and a fake Rolex, I'm thinking of carrying an AR pistol with armor piercing ammo. That's definitely our biggest worry.

Sarcasm aside, I feel no less safe with a 642 with 5, a 239 with 8, or a G19 with 15.

coalman

November 22, 2012, 11:40 AM

So I would prefer the ~38% larger hole of the .45 acp round over the 9mm round because I believe it is more apt to produce biological stops more often than 9mm (everything else being equal).

I agree with all but the "I believe" part. A larger hole will produce more stops "everything else being equal". It's the "everything else being equal" part that's (rightly so) up for debate (e.g. proficiency, POI, # hits, # targets, imagination, etc.) and anyone that thinks otherwise is drunk on the 9mm kool-aid.

Using top modern HP ammo they are simply not equal shot vs. shot, not even close really IMO, depending on what "close" or "close enough" means to you. On the "all handguns suck" scale, I'll take the one that sucks the least when I can.

As you noted, .45acp must shrink by 38% to equal 9mm, or 9mm must grow by 62% to equal .45acp. I carry and like both, and likewise prefer .45acp, but those are indeed the numbers. I made a graph:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-5zBe5TeohRc/UBDjHXDz52I/AAAAAAAAF-s/5Ojhg5byFEI/s800/comparisons-updated.jpg

KenW.

November 22, 2012, 11:53 AM

For those who disagree with shot placement, Why is the .22LR a favorite for delivering the coup-de-grace on game animals?

I've put down Holstein cows with a Colt .22 revolver. At point blank it is very clean.

The 22 works very well on woodchucks if you control were the hit is. Gut shoot them and they run off.

sgt127

November 22, 2012, 01:31 PM

Coalman:

I agree with the size of the hole, in paper and other non elastic surfaces. Human skin is remarkably pliable. It is difficult to determine caliber from an entry wound. As a matter of fact, based on my experience, a .25 auto entry wound looks pretty much like a .45 entry wound. Its just, well, a nasty looking puncture wound if shot from any distance. Theres still stuff going on inside, but, the size of the hole is pretty trivial.

Double Naught Spy

November 22, 2012, 03:07 PM

I agree with all but the "I believe" part. A larger hole will produce more stops "everything else being equal".

The only problem is, there is no data to prove this one way or the other, hence the "I believe." Your "IMO" is nothing more than my "I believe."

For those who disagree with shot placement, Why is the .22LR a favorite for delivering the coup-de-grace on game animals?

Because it is inexpensive compared to other ammo.

Once again, shot placement is nothing without trajectory and penetration.

KenW.

November 22, 2012, 03:56 PM

I was not advocating the taking of large animals with a .22 in other than the perfect environment. I was merely demonstrating that shot placement is King. Velocity and energy combined with that determines the lethality of the shot.

mljdeckard

November 22, 2012, 04:46 PM

Placement is king....if the bad guy has the common courtesy to stand still for you..in real life, you are doing well to get most of them in the 8 ring.

I'm pretty much with Double naught here. I carry 230 gr HSTs, but I have set my wife up with 115 gr 9mm. I think the real world difference is negligible, and even if it is significant, if she can get 3-4 hits with the 9mm in the same time it takes her to get 1-2 hits with the .45, that's pretty much a wash fforeffectiveness anyway. In addition to the fact she will be more proficient with a gun she actually enjoys shooting.

420Stainless

November 22, 2012, 07:39 PM

I don't pay much attention to caliber in that I have no problem with having a .380 ACP or .38 Special on me instead of the usual .45 ACP. However, I do agree with one earlier poster in that I don't shoot any of the smaller calibers more accurately or noticeably faster than the .45 ACP. All other things being equal, and for me they are, I'll side with the bigger hole. If I was having problems with followup shots then it would be a different story, but at this point in my life I'm just as fast with the PM45 or 1911 as I am with the PPKs and the Detective Special.

Archangel14

November 22, 2012, 10:17 PM

Oh stop! The .45 ACP is superior in every way to a 9mm, for killing men that is.

mljdeckard

November 22, 2012, 10:37 PM

Probably not so much as you think it is. A .45 is SOMEWHAT more effective under NORMAL circumstances. When you use terminology like; "superior in every way", it brings to mind people who think that a .45 will pick someone up and knock them over. It won't.

All service pistol rounds suck. The reason we spend so much money and research on building the perfect hollow-point is because there isn't one. The most likely reaction when someone is hit with a handgun is that they will RUN away. We teach multiple hits because you want to make sure they stop what they are doing, regardless of what round you carry. If you know how to shoot and run the gun correctly, you can do the job just fine with ANY service pistol, you don't need to carry a .45.

Archangel14

November 22, 2012, 10:53 PM

Stop this craziness! If YOU could choose to be shot in the shoulder by a .17 or an anti-tank howitzer round, what would you choose? I know it's a silly hypothetical, but it makes the point. How about a .22 or a .50 cal round? BIGGER IS BETTER ALL THE TIME! Bigger wounds, more loss of blood, bigger shock to the system! Any caliber is just fine for the precision head or heart shot. But no one, and I mean NO ONE, is so good as to be able to make such shots all the time, especially such shots against multiple men under stress. This is the EXACT reason our military moved away from .38's to .45's in the earlier part of the last century, and it's the exact reason why some of our military outfits are now choosing the .45 over the 9mm.

Wanna know why my go-to pistol is a .45? Because they don't make a .65!!

KenW.

November 22, 2012, 11:21 PM

I was once a .45 fanboy.

I set them aside and now carry either a 9mm or 40 sw daily for work, and a J-frame .38 when I'm off.

Guns are carried a LOT more than they get fired. A balance can be found. A hit with a 9mm is better than a miss with anything. You are right that there is no .65, but there is a .50 GI. Why not go to it if bigger really is better?

exdetsgt

November 23, 2012, 12:03 AM

I read all posts on this thread, and I'm still not sure about where to ask this question, but anyway, here it is.

I have a 9mm Beretta Nano with a 3" barrel.

I also have a S&W .38 special Model 36-1 J-frame. It also has a 3" barrel.

Using standard ammo - 115gr 9mm and 130gr 38 special - which would have the greater stopping power?

KenW.

November 23, 2012, 12:07 AM

I won't do your research, but I'll tell you what I do;

Subcompact XD 9mm some days at work (other days a XDM40 compact), and my M-36 with +P Gold Dots for Short Barrel off-duty.

mljdeckard

November 23, 2012, 01:38 AM

Not for the reasons you THINK it's better. The difference is subtle, not overwhelming. And if the lower recoil of a 9 lets you get another hit in the same amount of time, the difference is negated entirely.

I do a lot of work with 19th Group. They carry M-9s with NATO ammo.

coalman

November 23, 2012, 03:04 AM

The only problem is, there is no data to prove this one way or the other, hence the "I believe." Your "IMO" is nothing more than my "I believe."

Really? Big/Dangerous game hunters have proven larger and heavier is more effective time and again. They use larger and heavier projectiles (rifle vs. rifle) when smaller, lighter and faster ones are available. They pick what keeps them from getting killed best. The concepts are identical here service caliber vs. service caliber and I just never get why some do not apply the same "real" and "proven" outcomes to dangerous human targets. Or, even just basic reasoning. With an identical path/tract (which falls under "everything else being equal"), do we really need "data" to support a (larger) 13" long .451" cylindrical contact hole is more effective than a (smaller) 13" .355" cylindrical contact hole? Or, when comparing a 1.5x-1.6x expanded hole of the same depth for each? (elastic closure rebut noted below.)

So it's real clear, I like and use 9mm. I think 9mm is a great caliber, and the most ideal caliber for most shooters. I think it's capacity, recoil control, cost to practice, and gun size helps offset it's inferior shot vs. shot performance vs. .45acp. But, that does not delude me into thinking modern 9mm HP (the caliber) is "better" than modern .45acp HP (the caliber) just because I (the shooter) may be better with 9mm.

I agree with the size of the hole, in paper and other non elastic surfaces. Human skin is remarkably pliable. It is difficult to determine caliber from an entry wound. As a matter of fact, based on my experience, a .25 auto entry wound looks pretty much like a .45 entry wound. Its just, well, a nasty looking puncture wound if shot from any distance. Theres still stuff going on inside, but, the size of the hole is pretty trivial.

I always find the above argument an oddly illogical and contradictory argument in this context. In handguns, most all agree it's only what's contacted directly that counts. But, then I repeatedly read/hear the above "elastic closure" argument, often by 9mm fans, saying, well, actually, directly contacting more stuff is not actually better because the hole closes anyway. Makes absolutely no sense to me. Contacting more of the right stuff is better than contacting less of the right stuff. Seriously, if I showed you a 6" long .355" diameter pick and a 6" long .451" diameter pick, and you had to choose, would you really choose the larger pick to be jabbed with because, hey, you can't tell the difference anyway once you pull it out? Again, the elastic closure argument makes no sense to me.

Almost every one chooses or switches to 9mm because 1) it costs less to shoot, 2) it's easier to shoot well, 3) it's higher capacity or 4) the guns are smaller/lighter. But, then many, and in growing herd mentality number it seems, as they choose or make the switch I imagine, contrive 5) "9mm is also just as effective as .45acp" to support support and validate 1-4 so they can feel at peace with going 9mm. In reality, reasons 1-4 are enough in themselves, and modern 9mm HP adequately effective enough, to make 9mm a better choice for most shooters. So, in closing, 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. 9mm is a great caliber. I'll conclude my comments in this thread with that.

easyg

November 23, 2012, 04:26 AM

BIGGER IS BETTER ALL THE TIME!
Not necessarily....

The .45 ACP doesn't have anything on the .357 magnum in my opinion.

gk2410

November 23, 2012, 09:29 AM

I'm curious how many different conversations are going on here...

What's your purpose for carrying? Are you military or a private contractor on the front line and apt to get into a firefight? Are you LE who is required to engage a threat? Are you a businessman carrying due to a tangible threat? A permit holder who wants to protect himself and his loved ones? A homeowner exercising his right to proect his domain? What weapon you choose is an individual choice based on the above and a LOT of other factors.

I was LE in a major city for 27 years, with 16 of those years exclusively investigating homicides and officer involved shootings. I saw THOUSANDS of shooting victims in my career (we had 300+ homicides a year at the worst of times). Not too many stay aggressive after they've been shot by ANYTHING. I can think of a couple of officers who were shot and stayed in the fray, but the bad guys usually split (if they could).

I'm not disagreeing with your discussions on shot placement or caliber or how many rounds you get on target being important factors, but we each have different requirements. If you are Military or LE and HAVE to engage and pursue, then you need enough firepower and skill to achive that. If you're a permit holder protecting yourself from a potentially hazardous environment, you may not need a howitzer on your hip.

What I am comfortable carrying today (retired) is not what I would have been confortable with while working. At this point in my life I just want to abate the threat, and don't HAVE to chase the perp through the projects in the middle of the night. The mere presence of a firearm will abate most of what we (civilians) might encounter in our lifetimes.

There are a lot of very nice firearms available to you today in a variety of calibers. You may be confident enough in your abilities to carry a .32 Seecamp, or feel that you need a .44 Automag. A lot will depend on your environment and the perceived threats. Buy what you are comfortable and CONFIDENT carrying, then practise, practise, practise, and hope you never have the need.

Queen_of_Thunder

November 23, 2012, 10:02 AM

My view on this topic is simple. The more holes in the target the faster the blood leaks out.

Sheepdog1968

November 23, 2012, 07:21 PM

Fwiw, same arguments discussed by me and my buddies in early 90s. No firm conclusions reached then either n

RetiredUSNChief

November 26, 2012, 08:58 AM

Wanna know why my go-to pistol is a .45? Because they don't make a .65!!

I hit what I am aiming at, and I carry a G17 with 17 cartridges. And a spare magazine with 16 more.

popper

November 26, 2012, 03:25 PM

40S&W cause that's what I have, it works, I can load it to do what I want, double stack so I don't need another clip, cause if the wife doesn't like it she can go for her parring knife.

Tcruse

November 26, 2012, 07:25 PM

For the folks that think that "bigger is better", how do you explain the performance of the 5.7x28. 40g at 1800+ fps from a pistol.
Both speed and size are factors in any bullet. Also, bullet design is most likely also just as important. ( Fort Hood shootings, Mexician cartels, and Secret Service)
Read at least two comparisons that rated the fn over .45acp, from respected sources.

56hawk

November 26, 2012, 08:27 PM

Read at least two comparisons that rated the fn over .45acp, from respected sources.

Could you list those sources?

Cee Zee

November 27, 2012, 04:38 PM

As much as I like the .45 for putting big holes in humans (never had to do that and hope I never do) there are other considerations. A big one is the fact that slow moving (relatively), large projectiles like the .45 ACP bullet won't penetrate things like a car door steel nearly as well as smaller, faster rounds. That's one area where the 9mm has it all over the .45. And in this modern world we live in being able to penetrate a car door might save your life some day.

Then there's the .40 S&W. It will also penetrate car doors but it's bigger than the 9mm. People tend to think of it as a compromise round but I don't buy that. It's a round with it's own set of features. And with modern ammo it has most of the good features of the 9mm and the .45 ACP. No it isn't as big as a .45 round but if you can't shoot through that car door to get bullets where someone is hiding and shooting at you then you have a big disadvantage. So I bought myself a .40 and I've been carrying it in my car. BTW most of my confrontations with idiots have come in cars in my life. People think they can do stuff to you and then get away and for a long time they could. If you don't believe that ride a bicycle around a while and see what happens. Some people love slow moving targets on bikes and will throw things at you that could easily kill you. Trust me I know. Now we are faced with a large number of fellow citizens that can also have a gun legally in their car. You just don't know which ones might go off on you although the percentages are very, very low. But it's that 1 in a million chance we have to worry about. So I want something that will penetrate car door steel and another problem area, car windshield glass. The ammo I use in my .40 will penetrate both (Hornady Critical Duty) which gives me a big boost in my protection IMO.

Teachu2

November 27, 2012, 05:08 PM

As much as I like the .45 for putting big holes in humans (never had to do that and hope I never do) there are other considerations. A big one is the fact that slow moving (relatively), large projectiles like the .45 ACP bullet won't penetrate things like a car door steel nearly as well as smaller, faster rounds. That's one area where the 9mm has it all over the .45. And in this modern world we live in being able to penetrate a car door might save your life some day.

Then there's the .40 S&W. It will also penetrate car doors but it's bigger than the 9mm. People tend to think of it as a compromise round but I don't buy that. It's a round with it's own set of features. And with modern ammo it has most of the good features of the 9mm and the .45 ACP. No it isn't as big as a .45 round but if you can't shoot through that car door to get bullets where someone is hiding and shooting at you then you have a big disadvantage. So I bought myself a .40 and I've been carrying it in my car. BTW most of my confrontations with idiots have come in cars in my life. People think they can do stuff to you and then get away and for a long time they could. If you don't believe that ride a bicycle around a while and see what happens. Some people love slow moving targets on bikes and will throw things at you that could easily kill you. Trust me I know. Now we are faced with a large number of fellow citizens that can also have a gun legally in their car. You just don't know which ones might go off on you although the percentages are very, very low. But it's that 1 in a million chance we have to worry about. So I want something that will penetrate car door steel and another problem area, car windshield glass. The ammo I use in my .40 will penetrate both (Hornady Critical Duty) which gives me a big boost in my protection IMO.
Wow.

Cee Zee

November 27, 2012, 10:47 PM

Wow.

Wow?

mr.trooper

November 27, 2012, 11:07 PM

WOW ... As in most of what you just said it factually incorrect. Keep reading grasshopper.

Teachu2

November 27, 2012, 11:13 PM

Wow?
Loosely translated in this instance, it means I cannot envision a real-world self-defense scenario where I would be legally justified shooting through a car door. Back when I was a LEO, yes, but not as a civilian. Feel free to enlighten me with a plausible scenario.

A big one is the fact that slow moving (relatively), large projectiles like the .45 ACP bullet won't penetrate things like a car door steel nearly as well as smaller, faster rounds. That's one area where the 9mm has it all over the .45.

I've seen the .357SIG as a solid go-to round for car door/windshield penetration but I haven't heard or seen where the 9mm has it all over the .45 in that aspect. I've seen 9mm rounds that have partially or completely come apart upon penetration. I've also read they're more apt to have a trajectory deflection due to lower mass contacting the inner door framework.

As a .45 user, can you point me towards references that attest to the fact you stated above regarding the .45's lacking ability of penetration? I'm interested to see that.

ETA: Just thought of something...Are you referring to a 9mm round fired from a 9mm handgun? Or the 9mm round fired from a .357SIG handgun? If the former, I disagree. If the latter, I agree. Not that I have a need to penetrate cars and doors at home. At work, that's another story...but I've got better calibers for that use.

56hawk

November 28, 2012, 02:41 PM

Since we are talking about penetration now, I did a test on this at work a while back. Wanted to see how bulletproof plain polycarbonate was. Started of with a 1/4" sheet which only stopped up to 32 ACP. Went to 1/2" which stopped 45 ACP but not 9mm. This was all with FMJ round nose bullets.

bikerdoc

November 28, 2012, 02:53 PM

It is all about shot placement with a caliber you are good with, For me that is 45, 357, or 9mm

harrygunner

November 28, 2012, 04:33 PM

Training and practice trumps all.

After a decent amount, you'll spend less time worrying about equipment. Might even understand better shot placement is more likely to happen when one trains and practices.

BlindJustice

November 29, 2012, 11:26 AM

I mentioned to my shooting buddy, after he said his annual hiking/camping trip in the N. Idaho panhandle had included being warned about black bear active in the area. He had taken along his Glock 19.
He saiid he felt a bit under gunned. At the time we were driving back from the range. I told him I once read that Denmark puts two man Army teams on the Greenland Ice to census Polar Bears. They are armed with a .30-06 Bolt Action rifle and a Glock 20.(10MM Auto).

A few weeks later, I got to shoot his new Glock 20. Nice manageable
Rem. 180 gr. at 1,200 FPS. Heck I'm a 45 advocate ( 1911 & S&W 625( but that 10 is appealing. Oh, I also have an uber reliable and very accurate 9mm / CZ 75B - carry load is Double Tap +P but it's secondary
to the 45s, but a cheaper range option